In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ing to be based primarily on physiological information and interpretation —because I believe that the inviolability of the sources of human life defended by the Church, like the inviolability of human life itself, is so bound up with the physiology of both, that one will depend on what is known about the other.”55 The promised drug never materialized. Ford’s insistence on physiological data as the basis for future doctrinal development reveals a physicalist perspective that relied on nature to define moral obligation, particularly in cases involving medical and sexual ethics. We see this physicalist perspective applied in previously discussed cases. In the case of the scarred uterus, Ford changed his moral position on the issue because of new medical data on the mortality rates of women who had hysterectomies after several caesarean operations. Similarly, Ford’s support for the minority opinion on the case of double vasectomy was also based on current physiological knowledge of the male reproductive system. Taking into account the importance he gave to continuity with tradition , it seems uncharacteristic of Ford not to raise the question of continuity in his account of the development of the teaching on periodic continence. In his “Notes on Moral Theology” in 1942, Ford comments on the discrepancy between the current opinion of moralists on the use of periodic continence and the previous teaching based on Augustine’s negative view of the use of the sterile period. “I have seen no thorough study which reconciles the discrepancies between what is commonly taught now, and what seems to have been more or less commonly accepted in the past.”56 Ford was at a loss to explain how the teaching on periodic continence had changed so radically and so rapidly. Despite his insistence on continuity with tradition, Ford had to recognize that the Holy See and most moralists of his time had taken a position on periodic continence that contradicted a previous tradition based on Augustine ’s teaching. In a letter written to Joseph Dorsey in 1963, Ford reveals his continuing difficulty with the new developments in the teaching on rhythm. “If we are going to bring tradition into the picture, the thing that is more difficult to justify is the present attitude of the Church on rhythm. It would take too long to get into it, but the point is that the procreative purpose of sex looms so large in Christian tradition that the justification of rhythm becomes something of a problem, while the justification of The Development of Doctrine 97 98 Method contraception remains completely irreconcilable with that tradition.”57 In the same letter, Ford mentions sending the galleys of his book Marriage Questions to Dorsey. This fact is significant because in the final text of the book Ford did not mention any difficulty reconciling the practice of rhythm with the previous tradition forbidding such a practice. In fact, Ford readily accepted the radical changes in the teaching initiated by papal pronouncements in Casti connubii and the Address to Midwives. Two things seemed to have been in conflict in Ford’s mind while he was writing on periodic continence in Marriage Questions. On the one hand, Ford doubted the justification for periodic continence in the face of a long tradition that valued procreation. On the other hand, he needed to affirm the papal pronouncements on periodic continence. It would seem that despite Ford’s insistence on continuity with tradition as an essential part of any authentic doctrinal development, he was willing to revise his moral position and defer to the papal prerogative to introduce a new teaching. In the case of periodic continence, he had previously agreed with the majority opinion of moral theologians that there was no duty to procreate. But when Pius XII made the assertion in the Address to Midwives that there was a duty to procreate, Ford immediately conformed to the new papal position. He endorsed the papal pronouncement despite its lack of precedent in previous church documents and despite the majority opinion of moralists denying that such a duty existed. In a letter he wrote in 1964, Ford reveals his approach of dutiful conformity to papal pronouncements. “I think the only thing we can do at the present, when there is so much ferment, and so much amateur (and bootleg) moral theology being circulated, is to stick with the Pope. In practice I am firmly convinced that Catholics are bound to follow the directives of the Holy See and that confessors must be guided...

Share